Monday, June 30, 2014
Ethics without God
8:45 pm est
To those who say that God, a God, is
necessary for the development of a moral, or ethical individual, the Chinese present numerous counter examples. The Chinese
have developed a cultural ethic without the belief in monotheism.
This does not imply the absence
of belief systems among the Chinese:
"The largest group of religious traditions is the Chinese folk
religion, which overlaps with Taoism, and describes the worship of the shen, a term describing local deities, heroes
and ancestors and figures from Chinese mythology."...
Taoism dates back to the sage Laozi in
6th century BCE China, and refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious concepts, of which 'non-action'
and spontaneity might be considered the most important. Taoism, Daojiao, '(The) Way Teach(ing),' venerates
no particular deity.
..." According to a survey conducted in 2010, hundreds of millions of people
practice some kind of Chinese folk religions and Taoism; of these 754 million (56.2%) people practice Chinese ancestral veneration,
only 215 million (16%) believing in the existence of ancestral shen." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
Shen*: (god, diety, spirit, mind) seems to be the term closest to 'God,' though
no compound containing it seems to refer to 'The God' The combined form tianshen, (tian: heaven,
sky, nature, god) yields "sky spirits." There is also zhu: owner, master, God;
zhenzhu: true master, tianzhu: heavenly master. (My guess is that the use of zhu as
representing 'God,' is a relatively recent development, dating to the arrival of Christian missionaries in China in
the 16th century.) The very fact that there is no particular definitive term (one wouldn't refer to one's landlord
as 'God,' ) suggests the concept of a monotheistic God was not as important in Chinese culture as in the West.
That is to say, the concept a monotheistic God was not, and is not, central to Chinese cultural and ethical development.
does seem to be important is the role of exemplar. Role models are important, and numerous: Parents, especially
during the formative years, the rulers, and the wealthy, in the present, and in the past, the aristocracy. Setting examples
for others is a primary aspect of their leadership. They are thus not only expected to preach virtues, but to practice them
in their daily lives.
These role models do not exist in a vacuum, but in the context of a moral culture
going back thousands of years. Deities, heroes, ancestors, especially ones own ancestors, and figures from Chinese
mythology all provide models. But central to the development of this culture was the role of ancient sages, men who
not only taught virtues, handing down descriptions, cases of ethical dealing with various situations, but also
lived according to those virtues.
The most important of these ancient sages was Confucius.
Confucius (Kongzi, or Kong Fuzi,) is thought to have been born in 551 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius. He was born to minor aristocracy, in the state of Lu, in northeast China, in what is now Shandong Province. While
he grew up in poverty, he gained reputation through his teachings of the value of proper conduct and righteousness, as well
as for his practice of these virtues. Eventually, these values were recognized as useful by the ruling families of Lu, and
he gained appointments and rose in the affairs of his state. Seeking to strengthen the position of the ruling Duke of
Lu over his hereditary vassals, he made enemies. His successes were incomplete. He went into exile at age 54,
journeying about the neighboring kingdoms, expounding his teachings. He returned to Lu when he was 68, where he spent
his last years teaching to his disciples.
" One of the deepest teachings of Confucius may have been the superiority
of personal exemplification over explicit rules of behavior. His moral teachings emphasized self-cultivation, emulation of
moral exemplars, and the attainment of skilled judgment rather than knowledge of rules"...." His teachings rarely
rely on reasoned argument and ethical ideals and methods are conveyed more indirectly, through allusion, innuendo, and even
tautology. His teachings require examination and context in order to be understood. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius
Confucius was, and in many respects still is, the model role model. His importance rather belies his
relatively modest biography. Indeed, he is today an object not only of emulation, but veneration. Allowances,
however, are now made for his place and time, and the importance he placed on ritual and in preserving the feudal order he
was a part of is less emphasized. (Although he may have been radical in this, pushing the idea of rulers who would "succeed
to power on the basis of their moral merits instead of lineage.") However, his ethical teachings are still held
in great respect, and widely practiced. These are based three linked ideas: li doing the proper thing
at the proper time, yi, the idea of reciprocity: "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
" and doing what is ethically best in a given situation, and ren, consisting of five virtues: seriousness,
generosity, sincerity, diligence and kindness. In order to properly act on these principles, the inner self must be cultivated.
Virtuous and sincere behavior begins with knowledge. His major work, "The Analects," is prefaced with the
Chinese character for 'study.'
An ethical culture, with an idea of goodness, righteousness, and propriety,
existed prior to the development of monotheism. It also exists in contemporary Chinese culture.
of Chinese characters into Roman characters is problematic. Although efforts to represent Chinese characters in
Roman characters go back hundreds of years, it was really only in the 1950's that the modern hanyu pinyin
system was established. It has undergone several modifications since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin It is especially inexact without the symbols for the tones of the Chinese vowels, which typical fonts do not render.
For example, 'shen' has 4 different pronunciations. In pinyin, it can have any of four different
tonal symbols over the e. Each tonal symbol is a different pronunciation and a different word, with a different
meaning. 'Shen' can represent fourteen or so different characters, each different words, with
meaning ranging from deep and profound to explain, from god and spirit to ooze to reach and to kidney and to other meanings,
depending on the pronunciation and character.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Consequences of the Ordering of Good and God
12:09 am est
You are God. Since You are God, if you believe in God, but you do not believe He is you, and
you believe He is external to you, all morality either originates in, or is refracted by, this external image of the self.
All morality thus comes from this externalized image of the self. This is a source
of confusion, for it is an externalization of that which is in fact internal. (Even those for whom no coherent image
is formed, for instance Atheists, there is a projection onto the exterior and back again.) Thus, it has the appearance
of objectivity, when in fact it is purely subjective. (Really it is you, doing what you want.)
is not to imply that moral beliefs are not in some sense universal, but since they are subjective, they can only be poorly
described objectively. Thus when we try to say why this is good or why that is bad we are often at a loss for words,
and when we are not, words often slide aside from the point we are trying to make. This is because words are blunt instruments
when focused on the unconscious operations of the brain. In particular, they are really only designed to describe that part
of the brain which is verbal.
But most of the brain is non-verbal. Much of morality is non-verbal.
Even for those actions we clearly believe are wrong,
such as murder and theft, we have difficulty describing with words why they are wrong. Some say it is because God, who
is good, said they were evil acts, which should not be done. Others go right to the act itself, and say there is an
objective standard of goodness, that murder and theft are not a part of. Some may say God may be an expression of this goodness,
though others may say He is not necessary.
Often the reason professed is because we wouldn't
want them to happen to us. But this makes morality merely a matter of self-interest, and we are not quite comfortable with
that answer, either.
When then we deal with goodness and God, we imagine
we are stuck with choice: Is good good because God says so, or is God good according to some objective standard of goodness?
can only arbitrarily be determined, because they both arise from the unconscious mind. Looking at it from the point
of view of the psychological development of the child, there is seen to be a stage of development where they are identical:
Good is God and God is Good, (at least for monotheists,) and the question of precedence arises only later as the concepts
become separate in the developing child's mind.
It seems that at this stage belief could go either way. But what is this process?
It is a decision in the child's mind, that one is defined in terms of the other. Usually, for this is what is usually
taught, and indeed what is easier to teach, good is defined in terms of God. The question of precedence is a decision
in the conscious mind of the child, which is later rendered unconscious, that is, 'forgotten' in the adult.
Since this order of precedence is unconscious, this is assumed to be natural.
the equality of 'God equals good' is unstable in the verbal mind, (is, in English anyway, implying something like
"is contained in the set of all _____ things" as in "The ball is (contained in the set of all) round (things.)")
the mind, as it becomes more verbally sophisticated, settles on one order or the other. This releases the tension implied
with conceptual equality, since equality implies many more relationships and restrictions than that implied by "is contained
in." This tension is released in what might be called either the right handed "good because God says so," or
the left handed "good the (absolute) standard which God upholds." Good is God, vs God is good. The practical
limitation of 'is' is an expression of this tension, not the cause.
development leads to a less sophisticated sense of moral order than that the child originally had, and this can only be recovered
later in life. This forms a conscious model for the mystic, and the recovery of the unity of the God Consciousness requires
a backward movement along the path of development in all dimensions, the psychic un-separation and dis-ordering of the separations
and orderings of idea formation that constitute normal development. In the child's mind, only one path
is taken, and the other path must be brought to contemplation to recover the symmetry. In the moral case, the ideas of Good and God are separated and ordered, one above the
other. Indeed, the psychological ordering of these
concepts, and other concepts which were originally degenerate, whichever combinations are chosen, become a barrier to higher
This actual equality becomes apparent because neither
ordering bears close scrutiny, The arbitrary God is nevertheless constrained by requirements of reality. The arbitrary
God, (and He is arbitrary) cannot make arbitrary evil a virtue, because in a very real absolute sense, it is not. It
is incompatible with a stable society. The subservient to good God has options due to 'necessity,' and
can also deal mercy and justice arbitrarily, so is not so constrained as He first appears.
words conveniently describe the result of this release, but not the original state. (Think of it like this: Is good
alive, or is God inanimate? But then, we have the living word, the word made flesh, etc.) In fact, it is only
with difficulty and practice that the idea of the equality of God and good can be maintained in the mind at all, since sensible
descriptions, using words, imply one relationship or the other. If one does not choose one ordering or the other, the mind
tends instead toward a dualism where under some conditions one description applies, while under different conditions the other
Equality is difficult, because the concepts are not identical types
in the mind. Note the conceptual splitting: One part becomes person, the other object. In the original
state these were conflated. That is, to the very young child, inanimate objects were perceived as alive, and persons,
and the differentiation as the child ages parallels and confirms the separation and ordering of the concepts.
This splitting is modeled
on the original noun/verb (object/action) splitting, which comes earlier. In the undeveloped mind these were originally
fused. This is not in the sense of being mixed, but rather being in one higher undifferentiated state which, with more experience,
breaks in two: One, noun, 'above' the other, verb. Indeed, the general process is one of successive symmetry
breaking, as each concept, or category, is broken into sub-categories, as a result of either internal pressure, or external
tension. Verbal development both drives and is driven by this maturing.
described the tension involved in the equality, and the two orderings of the concepts of good and God that result. Since
we are limited to words, let us describe in more detail the different systems of belief, the consequences of each ordering.
On the right, where good is defined by God, we have whatever God does is good, and whatever He says is good, is good.
God is the final arbiter. He thus has license to be completely arbitrary, and virtuous behavior is derived
from that arbitrary system of good and evil that God has established. That is, good and evil, in this ordering, are arbitrary,
and the earthly and heavenly system of reward and punishment are bent to conform to this. Stealing and murder are bad
not because they are inherently bad, or destructive, but only because God says they are. Philosophical discussions of
good and evil are properly discussions of God's motives. Murder and theft may be virtuous, if God, or rather such authority
as represents Him, says so. Thus, if God says: "Kill this one," or "Take from that one," is good, then
the authoritarian individual has not only license, but duty to act.
this with the left hand view, that there is some absolute standard of good and evil, "out there," to which God,
by definition of being good, conforms. Stealing and murder are inherently bad, and the rewards and punishments of heaven
and earth reflect this. They are in a sense automatic. God is law giver, but not law maker. Thus, God would not
say "Kill this one," or "Take from that one," except out of necessity, for these acts are intrinsically
evil. They cannot be made virtuous, but only necessary. One cannot act out of retribution, but only out of prevention
of further depredation.
In their social and psychological consequences of these
two orderings are not equivalent.
One social consequence of the authoritarian ordering
is seen in the death penalty. Those states where the people see good as defined by God tend to see execution as virtuous,
and thus tend to do it more frequently, and with greater enthusiasm than states where there is a greater tendency to see good
as defining God, where killing, even of the evil, is always seen as an evil. We also see a greater tendency to severity
of punishment of law in authoritarian states. There is also a greater acceptance of the order of things.
remember, these are all justified by projections of the self, which is God. The authoritarian God is thus, in a sense,
more liberating, since He makes a virtue of the self's expressions of, (that is, His expressions of,) negative emotions,
where the authoritative God, even under the 'proper' circumstances, only grudgingly grants permission, to the self,
for these to be acted upon. The authoritative individual is thus more restrained, even to the point of repression of
these negative emotions themselves, since any action on them tends more to be frustrated.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Does Humanity Have a Future?
10:00 pm est
Does humanity have a future? This in the sense of the future being other than
more of the past.
Over at The Foundational Questions Institute (http://www.fQxi.org) they are concluding an essay contest. The subject of the essay is: "How should humanity steer the future?"
seem to assume the answer to an even more fundamental question, one which has not yet been settled:
Should humanity steer the future? Or perhaps even more fundamentally: Can humanity steer its
Those who think that humanity cannot steer its future subscribe to one or another version of the
basic idea that humanity is too stupid to manage itself. One version of this is the idea that society is just
too complicated to be governed. And one version of this is that this will always be the case, since society
is made up of complicated individuals, and so will always be even more complicated; too complicated to manage.
this is not necessarily the case. Physics studies things with many interacting parts, whose total behavior can nevertheless
be summed up in a few, relatively simple equations. And many systems with complicated parts are easy to manage.
indeed, this is one of the goals of modern industry, to create things of great complexity which are nevertheless 'easy
to use,' easy to control.
Also, the past shows that societies can, indeed be marshaled to accomplish
great things outside of themselves. Unfortunately, most often these great accomplishments have been victories
in conflicts- wars against other societies, whose own great accomplishments were to marshal their resources to war.
Of course, these are just individual societies, and not the whole globe of societies, which is clearly a bigger
ball of wax, and one whose behavior is almost certainly not merely the sum of its parts. So it won't be easy.
there are many of those who believe mankind should not steer its future. Often, these 'put their faith
in God.' God will provide mankind, those 'chosen' who survive, anyway, a paradise in the
future. This assumes first that God exists, and second, that God does not expect much from humanity. Did God make mankind
too stupid to manage his society, or his world? Since man is also presumed to be His highest creation, this would seem
to be a terrible disappointment to God. One might believe instead that it was a hope of God that mankind could indeed
manage his society. In particular, God must hope mankind can manage his appetite and the resources of the planet:
That man can indeed be the 'good steward.' Or will God reward those who helped screw up this planet with their
unrestrained appetite, giving them a new, virgin one to screw up? Will He? So a third assumption is that
God's grace will descend on the sinner, and one who by the way refuses to repent, and lift him up to paradise, to be steward
(or wined and dined?) where before he had failed.
Perhaps managing this world is humanity's
test, to see if it deserves a new planet. And what a perfect test it would be. The results of the test would be
the reward. If mankind succeeded, and managed to preserve the planet, to indeed create a paradise on earth, that
is what he would get. If, on the other hand, he failed, and created a hell on earth, then that is what
he would get. And whatever world in between, depending on his grade. A so-so world would always be possible.
Maybe likely. So consider, what other test should there be, to determine just what kind of 'New Earth' humanity
In fact, an un-steered humanity's path is predictable. Indeed, its social evolution has
been recently predicted, as can its economic path. Both paths are downhill: They are, in fact, the paths of maximum
entropy, a decline to states where nothing useful can be extracted. For humanity, this means a state where nothing useful
can be done, including perhaps even maintaining itself.
Now it is uncertain that even with the application
of intellect, any system can escape the bounds of entropy. But it is certain, without the application and mind and hand,
entropy will triumph, and the world will evolve into the worst of all possible worlds.
Those who promote the idea
of stupid humanity nevertheless see themselves as clever. They see themselves climbing to the top of the dung heap humanity
will become. Indeed, it is a dung heap they would help to create, with their unrestrained appetite, and its concomitant
Mankind must learn to put more into the earth than it takes out. The real problem
is that each individual must learn to do so. And as both population and inequality increase, this will become
more difficult. As population increases, the total burden of humanity on the earth will increase. As inequality
increases, the number of desperately poor, who see no future beyond today, who are prepared to sacrifice that tomorrow for
today, will increase. And at the other end, there are those who live large, who casually squander earth's limited
resources to meet their own perverse needs. And all in between, are those who take more than they give, expecting there
will always be more. Because in their experience, there always has been more. But this is increasingly no
longer the case. More and more, resources are depleted, and insufficient effort is taken to conserve, to maintain and
Can? Should? The fact is, humanity is steering its future. It cannot
help but do it, even if it is to make the choice to pretend to avoid all responsibility for its choices. But humanity
cannot avoid this responsibility. It is responsible. But will it acknowledge this responsibility, or will it deny
it, and so be compelled to take responsibility for its failure.
Monday, March 31, 2014
The Web of Society and Mind Part III
7:58 pm est
We review what we have covered previously:
social web is defective, indeed has always been defective, since it is created by, and maintained by, and
for, premature mature individuals. Each society has its peculiar defects, and inflicts its peculiar deformations on its members.
Each society requires on the part of all, or at least most of, its members an effort to maintain it, thus
reducing the availability of time and energy necessary for the individual to pursue and develop a more mature self, that is,
to increase the weight of his internal nodes. Some societies require greater effort to maintain themselves, and are thus less
tolerant of individuals reducing or being able to reduce their effort to maintain society, a reduction of effort which may
be necessary if the individual is to have available the effort required to mature.
Because they are defective, societies (Or perhaps one should say civilizations. Primitive
societies, which have reached an equilibrium with their environment, have tended to at least a sort of stability.) are generally
not stable. The arc of a civilization’s history starts with growth, continues through a period of
stagnation, then enters a period of decline. This arc corresponds to the availability and richness of resources that the civilization
is able to exploit in its environment. The historical trend has been for civilizations to grow when resources
are plentiful, to peak and then to decline when they exploit those resources to depletion.
The development of the social web goes through corresponding changes, connectors and nodes first becoming
richer and more numerous, when during the early growth of their society they have access to increasing quantities of resources.
After the society peaks, the connectors and nodes become sparser. As societies devolve, the flow
of resources and information flow through fewer and longer circuits which, because they are of increasing length, are increasingly
susceptible to disruption and failure. (Connectors become more and more in series, and less and less in
parallel. For connectors in series in a circuit to work, both have to work. The current flows through one
connector after the other. For connectors in parallel, only one has to work. The current can flow through
either connector. Interestingly, as the mind develops, and its internal connections become sparser, it
becomes, in a sense, less reliable.)
In growing societies, the image presented the individual is more attainable by that member, and this fact
discourages any of regression, stasis, or the pursuit of maturity. As the energy to society becomes less available, however,
that image becomes increasingly unattainable. This is not just due to energy considerations, but also organizational reasons:
The web has already started to become sparser, and the connectors necessary for the web of mind to attain society’s
offered image become decreasingly available. This fact is eventually understood by more and more members of that society,
especially among the middle and lower classes. As a consequence they no longer participate in, or even
come to actively oppose, the maintenance of that society.
The paradox here is that at this stage, the society still has the energy
available for improvement of the individual, either to the image society presents or to real maturity, but it is still organized
in a pattern according to its earlier needs. In today’s society we see this in the problem of high unemployment, coupled
with the high costs of education. There is no need for society to demand of everyone so much labor to support
society or themselves, and there is no reason they cannot be allowed the leisure and resources, to improve themselves. Neither
is there any point in educating them to attain the material images offered by society, as for many, these are unobtainable
anyway, or more properly, increasing their education to attain these goals will not help their chances. (This is a case of
the failure of composition. It is in the interests of each individual to get an education. But
when all do it, there is no net improvement it the position or opportunity of any individual. This is because, at this stage,
the wealthy are busy depriving the rest of the society of the resources necessary for growth. Indeed with the high costs of
education, the web of debt acquired by each individual puts them is a worse position, both materially and psychologically.)
Further, the high cost of education is unnecessary,
as our society has the resources to supply it to individuals more cheaply, if it dedicated its resources more appropriately.
And the education society provides is inappropriate, as material wealth, beyond the point of reasonable comfort, is
mostly irrelevant both to society and to the development of the mature individual. Education should be dedicated to developing
the individual’s web of mind, which is its own reward, rather than improving the individual’s ability to contribute
to the social web, which is unnecessary and also will not likely be rewarded. Education dedicated to improving
the individual is also one which will benefit society, as the mature individual is equipped to contribute more to society.
Of course, the mature individual will seek a society which is more congenial to his desires, and will tend, therefore, to
also work to alter that society.
So what of the web of mind? We
see that societies tend to impose a structure on the mind which does not meet many of its desires. Indeed,
it distorts those desires, to rather meet the needs of society. Uppermost in this is the denial of the divinity of the mental
web. That is, the denial of the fact that it is God. The mind reacts to this in different
ways, which we discussed in: http://www.truthabouttheone.com/2010.06.01_arch.html.
All these defense mechanisms result in either homeostasis or the continued pursuit of the image of mind as presented
by society. These mechanisms are both a cause and a result of the distorted web of mind imposed by
society. Barriers to an awakening consciousness, they serve the needs of society, and impose an unconscious structure on the
individual from which it is difficult for them to escape.
Friday, February 28, 2014
The Universe as Noise
10:38 pm est
The Universe as Noise
A while back, http://www.truthabouttheone.com/2012.03.01_arch.html
we considered ‘Everything’ as signal, that is, correlated, and so Everything
as God. Here we consider everything as noise, uncorrelated chaos, and so not God. And so there is no God.
If everything is noise, then the extraction of signal is delusion.
But correlations will be perceived somewhere, at random, and be perceived as meaningful signals. They would merely
be a correlation between two different segments of noise. The pattern of noise of the receiver
would correspond to the pattern of noise of the sender.
But the existence of internal correlations contradicts our supposition of everything as noise.
Signals then arise out of necessity, merely because in infinite noise, or just large enough noise, such correlations
necessarily exist. Another way to phrase it is that infinite noise necessarily has a structure.
So we consider the self, the observer, as a finite interval of noise,
in an infinite length of noise. In an infinite length of noise, there will be infinitely many finite segments
with many, however large many is, if finite, internal correlations, corresponding to a ‘self.’ The self will perceive
as signal any correlation with any sub-interval of itself. By ‘perceive‘ we mean that there exists a more of less
simple mapping, between a noise segment exterior to out reference segment, our ‘self,’ and some segment interior
to our reference segment.
do we mean by map? We are requiring a ‘source’ segment in our infinite, or large enough, noise,
and a propagation of a copy of, a signal of, the segment of noise throughout the infinity of noise, to the receiving segment.
We also imagine our noise segments to sometimes interact in lasting ways.
We are thinking one dimensionally here, just to convey the rough idea. We also suppose
limited variation. That is, there is a limit to how abruptly the noise changes.
Consider then, very short segments of such noise. If
the segments are short enough, there will only be so many different ‘sounds,’ to each of which we can assign,
to a given level of accuracy, a letter of some finite alphabet. (Technically, given limited variation, if our interval is
short enough, we will only be able to distinguish between so many functions on the interval. Each ‘sound’ will
be a subset, some combination of a limited number of waves.) The arrangement of these letters will be random,
that is, noise. But since these intervals are finite, ie a finite sampling of waves of an infinite length of noise, there
will be infinite correlations, that is, infinite segments in the infinite noise, which correlate with each of them. They will
be at random intervals from the observing interval. In addition, these correlations may be at different
scales of amplitude and wavelength. For instance, we might have a segment 4k2k3k… receiving
a signal 4n2n3n… where k,n are constant length intervals of noise between segments of signal.
Everything is noise, swimming in a sea of noise. Everything which impinges on the senses
is noise, from which the senses extract a correlation, a signal, a message from the universe. We are parsing
noise, that is, finding correlations between regions of self and regions of our exterior.
Your mind is chaos and disorder. But what you perceive correlates with
that disorder, a corresponding disorder itself, which so appears to you as orderly. And you perceive others,
of like chaos and disorder, who appear to you of like order, and of which you make a society, and a world of your delusion.
The correlations are there, and perceived as
signal, although their true reality as noise may not be properly understood by the deluded individual,
who reads into his outside, his environment, the disorder of his own mind, some of which he may even externalize, that is
project onto his environment, transforming the noise of his own mind into a signal from the outside. So
the deluded individual imagines conspiracy, where there is only noise. The conspiracy is a comfort, since
he interprets it as evidence of other minds.
The segment of noise which constitutes your mind develops a theory of mind, that the coherence it perceives
is evidence of other minds, segments of noise, which send signals to it, but which is really noise which your mind parses
as signal. Of course, there is no reason to assume you are the only segment of noise which develops a theory
of mind, that perceives coherence as evidence of other minds. As long as the noise in which the segment
that is your mind exists is large enough, this is even likely.
for us, the noise is not too noisy, that correlations are ‘close together,’ enough indeed that not only may intelligent
‘selves’ be formed, but they are sustained by sufficient correlation such that they are not torn apart, or devolve
into uncorrelated segments of noise. And there is enough noise, perceived as various correlated intervals,
such that the ‘selves’ do not devolve into too correlated segments of noise.
Some selves’ internal correlations are more complicated than others,
as are their correlations with their exterior. They perceive longer and more complicated intervals of their
environment than others, interpreting these intervals of noise as longer and more complicated signal. Since
all is delusion, their delusions are merely more sophisticated than others, their delusions shared by fewer. And
some selves indeed may appear unique in their delusions.
But there is no God. It is just noise. Infinite noise. And just noise
is what is required by the Atheist, since any underlying signal would be God.
And there is nothing else but noise. Correlations are just coincidence, places and times
where random bits of noise happen to match. And you, a segment of noise, surrounded by a sea of noise,
a bath of noise, noisy enough but not too noisy, from which you derive signal from noise, simply because some of that noise
is similar to, correlates with, some particular noisy segment of you, who are noise. And God. But it has
no real significance. No meaning. Only what you assign it, to comfort yourself, to assure you are not alone, and not God,
the sole mote of true self awareness in a sea of noise. And thus you raise the delusion of your existence.
Of which this segment of noise is a part.
Just by the way, the supposition that everything is noise, aside from being self-contradictory, also, for
large enough noise, implies not only the existence of other selves, but the existence of a very large number of intelligent
For that is who You are.
Whether or not You choose to believe that You are God,
the One God, that of course is your divine prerogative.
As for the reality, You are God, whether You want to be or not. So Welcome!
Here You will find some
answers to some questions You may have about Your divine nature, and the nature of Your creation.
If you are
satisfied with your
life, your faith,your
God, you are
But of course,
who am I to
is only God.
God is known by
Faith and belief comprise a very important part of our lives. A person's beliefs in
many ways define who they are -- how they see themselves, what they want out of life, and more.
On this web site
I'll offer a personal account of my own beliefs. I'll describe how my beliefs have changed my life in profound and
exciting ways, and how I think they might change the lives of others.
I'll also be sure to provide links to
my favorite sites as well as information about organizations that help strengthen or support my beliefs., or provide interesting
Thanks for visiting. Have a good day!
You are at: